Chauffeurs, Etc., Helpers "General" Local 200

826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Counsel's rebuttal, that he had "graduated from" the University of Wisconsin, major- ing in accounting and bookkeeping. Originally and in the remand hearing, Nardoni clarified that he was referring to the courses he took through USAFI as to which there is indication of a connection with the University of Wisconsin.23 In addition, Nardoni was advised at his Army camp that completion of USAFI courses were "similar to" graduation from the University. He did not need an education or degree in accounting to qualify as a $100-a-week bookkeeper. And the fact that at times he took employment other than bookkeeping does not establish a lack of capacity as a bookkeeper. There is enough evidence relating to his self-teaching and cor- respondence courses as well as his prior employment to dispel any contention that he was unqualified as a bookkeeper, as would arguably lend weight to Respondent's defense that he was discharged for incompetency. From the facts described in the prior Intermediate Report and those further shown in the remand hearing, it is clear to me that Nardoni had not practiced any deception upon Respondent with respect to his qualifications for and ability to perform the bookkeeping job 24 How- ever, even assuming for argument's sake that Nardoni engaged in an exaggeration or falsification in the portion of his original testimony under challenge, I would not find any justification thereby for discrediting him generally or rejecting his entire testimony.25 Indeed, even accepting only that part of Nardoni's testimony which is uncontradicted or corrobrated by circumstances and other witnesses (e.g., Crawford), there is ample evidence, in my opinion, to support the Section 8(a) (3) finding that he was discharged for discriminatory reasons26 Accordingly, I adhere to my original findings of fact and conclusions of law, as supplemented or modified herein, and recommend the same Order against Respond- ent as previously set out in my Intermediate Report.27 23 Registrar Dicks' letter to Nardoni, supra. 24 There is no contention that Na:rdoni, in his employment application and interview, did not truthfully advise Respondent of his qualifications for the job he was given. It was previously shown , inter alia, that he was interviewed by the firm's accountant, the controller, and Respondent herself ; that Respondent prevailed upon him to stay after Nardoni had noted in a report his decision to -leave because of the "mess" he was con- fronted with in the bookkeeping department; and that Controller Fox gave Nardoni a letter of reference stating that he found Nairdoni "an energetic, efficient, loyal, dependable and intelligent individual." 25 See, e g, N.L.R B. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL- CIO, Local 517, AFL (G%l Wyner Construction Co ), 230 F 2d 256 (C.A. 1) ; N L R.B v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F. 2d 749 (C.A. 2) ; Local 212, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL- CIO (Chrysler Corporation), 128 NLRB 952; Florida Steel Corporation (Tampa Forge and Iron Division), 131 NLRB 1179. 2° E g , Colonial Shirt Corporation, 96 NLRB 711; The Post Printing and Publishing Company, 90 NLRB 1820. 21 However, the Recommended Order is modified to include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as an addition to the backpay, to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing if Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers "General" Local Union No. 200, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America and Milwaukee Cheese Com- pany. Case No. 13-CE-5. September 26, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges filed by Milwaukee Cheese Company, herein called the Charging Party or Milwaukee Cheese, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, on September 15, 1961, issued a complaint alleging that Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers "General" Local Union No. 144 NLRB No. 81. CHAUFFEURS, ETC., HELPERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 827 200, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, herein called the Respondent, had en- gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(e) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent, and copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were served upon the Charging Party. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that the Respondent entered into, maintained, and gave effect to certain clauses in its Central States Area Local Cartage Agreement and its Central States Area Over-the-Road Agreement with Steffke Freight Company and Gateway Transportation Com- pany, herein called Steffke and Gateway, pursuant to which Steffke and Gateway have ceased or refrained from, and have agreed to cease or refrain from, handling, using, transporting, or otherwise dealing in shipments of cheese and other food products from Milwaukee Cheese, and from doing business with Milwaukee Cheese and other persons. On September 29, 1961, the parties to this proceeding executed a stipulation of facts, and also joined in a motion to transfer proceeding directly to the Board for issuance of findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. The motion states, in substance that the parties have waived a hearing before a Trial Examiner and the issuance of an Intermediate Report, and have agreed that the charge, complaint, an- swer, and stipulation of facts constitute the entire record in the case, and that no oral testimony is necessary or desired by any of the parties. On October 5, 1961, the Board issued its Order granting motion and transferring case to the Board, in which it granted per- mission to the parties to file briefs. The General Counsel and the Respondent have filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, including the stipula- tions and the briefs, the Board makes the following: I FINDINGS OF FACT 1. COMMERCE Milwaukee Cheese is a Wisconsin corporation engaged at Wauke- sha, Wisconsin, in the manufacture, processing, and wholesale distri- 1 The request of the Respondent for oral argument , made in the motion to transfer pro- ceeding to the Board , is hereby denied as the record adequately sets forth the issues and the positions of the parties. 828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bution of dairy and other food products. During the past year, it purchased materials and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Wisconsin, and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State. Steffke, a wholly owned subsidiary of Spector Freight System, Inc., and Gate- way are employers engaged as common carriers of freight by motor vehicle between and through various States of the United States, from which each annually derives revenue in excess of $50,000. We find that Milwaukee Cheese, Steffke, and Gateway are engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers "General" Local Union No. 200, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The facts, as stipulated, show that the Respondent, on January 18, 1961, entered into its Central States Area Local Cartage Agreement and its Central States Area Over-the-Road Agreement with Steffke and Gateway. On April 10, 1961, the Respondent demanded recog- nition of Milwaukee Cheese as the bargaining representative of its truckdriver employees. When Milwaukee Cheese refused recognition, the Respondent began to picket its premises on April 11, and was still picketing on September 29, 1961, the date the stipulation of facts was executed. During the picketing, Milwaukee Cheese was unable to deliver its products to Gateway or Steffke for transshipment to cus- tomers except when, on a few occasions, deliveries were unloaded by supervisory personnel of Gateway or Steffke. Similarly, products consigned to Milwaukee Cheese via Gateway or Steffke have generally not been delivered during the strike because Gateway and Steffke drivers have refused to cross the picket line; a few deliveries, however, have been made through the picket line by Gateway and Steffke em- ployees or supervisory personnel. As indicated, the complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8 (e) of the Act by entering into, maintaining, and giving effect to certain provisions of the Local Cartage and Over-the-Road Agree- ments with Steffke and Gateway. The Respondent admits that Steffke CHAUFFEURS, ETC., HELPERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 829 and Gateway have at all times maintained and given effect to these provisions, but denies any violation of Section 8 (e) 2 1. The Local Cartage and Over-the-Road Agreements both contain the following substantially identical provisions : ARTICLE 9.-PROTECTION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. Picket Line.-It shall not be a violation of this Agreement and it shall not be cause for discharge or disciplinary action in the event an employee refuses to enter upon any prop- erty involved in a labor dispute or refuses to go through or work behind any picket line, including the picket line of Unions party to this Agreement and including picket lines at the Employer's place or places of business. SEC. 2. Struck Goods.-Recognizing that many individual employees covered by this contract may have personal convic- tions against aiding the adversary of other workers, and recog- nizing the propriety of individual determination by an individual workman as to whether he shall perform work, labor or service which he deems contrary to his best interests, the parties recog- nize and agree that : It shall not be a violation of this Agreement and it shall not be a cause for discharge or disciplinary action if any employee refuses to perform any service which, but for the existence of a controversy between a Labor Union and any other person (whether party to this Agreement or not), would be performed by the employees of such person. Likewise, it shall not be a violation of this Agreement and it shall not be a cause for discharge or disciplinary action if any employee refuses to handle any goods or equipment transported, interchanged, handled or used by any carrier or other person, whether a party to this Agreement or not, at any of those termi- nals or places of business where there is a controversy between such carrier or person, or its employees on the one hand and a Labor Union on the other hand; and such rights may be exer- cised where such goods or equipment are being transported, han- dled or used by the originating, or interchanging or succeeding Carriers or persons whether parties to this Agreement or not. The Employer agrees that it will not cease or refrain from handling, using, transporting, or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other Employer or cease doing business with 2The Respondent also contends that Section 8(e) is unconstitutional This contention is rejected as the Board must assume the constitutionality of the Act which it is called upon to administer, in the absence of a binding court decision to the contrary. Amal- gamated Lithographer8 of America (Ind.) et at. (The Employing Lithographers, et al.), 130 NLRB 985, 991. 830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD any other person, or fail in any obligation imposed by the Motor Carriers' Act or other applicable law, as a result of individual employees exercising their rights under this Agreement or under law, but the Employer shall, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, when necessary, handle, use, transport, or otherwise deal in such products and continue doing such business by use of other employees (including management representa- tives), other Carriers, or by any other method it deems appropri- ate or proper. SEC. 3. Grievances.-Within five (5) working days of filing grievance claiming violation of this Article 9, the parties to this Agreement shall proceed to the final step of the Grievance Pro- cedure, (Article 8, Sec. 1(d)) without taking any intermediate steps, any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary not- withstanding. ARTICLE 29.-SUB-CONTRACTING 3 (a) The Employer agrees to refrain from using the services of any person who does not observe the wages, hours and conditions of employment established by labor unions having jurisdiction over the type of services performed. The above picket line, struck goods, and subcontracting clauses are identical, with certain insignificant variations, with provisions which the Board found unlawful in Truck Drivers Union Local No. 413, In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (The Patton Warehouse, Inc.), 140 NLRB 1474. We find, therefore, for the reasons stated in that decision, and to the extent found there, that such clauses are violative of Section 8 (e) of the Act, and that the Respondent, by entering into, maintaining, and giving effect to these clauses, has violated Section 8(e). 2. The Over-the-Road Agreement also contains the following pro- visions, which the complaint alleges constitute additional violations of Section 8(e) : ARTICLE 32.-OWNER-OPERATORS . . . SEC. 19. (a) The use of individual owner-operators shall be permitted by all certificated or permitted carriers who will agree to submit all grievances pertaining to owner-operators to joint Employer-Union grievance committees in each respective state. It is understood and agreed that all such grievances will be promptly heard and decided with the specific purpose in mind of . . . (4) owner-driver operations to be terminal to terminal, except where no local employees to make such deliveries or otherwise agreed to in this contract; 'The subcontracting provision is numbered Article 29(a) In the Local Cartage Agree- ment and Article 47(a) in the Over the-Road Agreement. CHAUFFEURS, ETC., HELPERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 831 ARTICLE 4O.-PERISHABLE COMMODITIES ONLY . . . SEC. 2. One pickup and one delivery of a solid load may be made by the road drivers in the event same can be performed within the Interstate Commerce Commission regulations, pro- vided no driver shall make delivery at final destination who has worked and/or driven more than ten (10) hours. Where local conditions do not now permit any such pickup and/or delivery, such conditions shall continue. There shall be no pickup or de- livery of a solid load in the area under the jurisdiction of I.B.T. Locals 710, 705, 782, 801 and Independent Local 705, in the Chi- cago area, other than those that may be permitted under the terms of such Locals' agreements. We find that the language of section 19 (a) of article 32 and section 2 of article 40 is too vague to be susceptible of construction or inter- pretation to determine their legality under Section 8 (e) of the Act, particularly in the absence of evidence as to how these clauses were administered by the contract parties. Section 19 (a) of article 32 provides for the use of owner-operators by employers who agree to sub- mit grievances pertaining to them to joint employer-union grievance committees, such owner-driver operations to be terminal to terminal except as provided therein. Insofar as this section purports to provide for the filing of grievances of the employers' own employees 4 and the preservation of the jobs of such employees,' it appears to be lawful. Section 2 of article 40 appears to limit the number of pickups and deliveries which may be made, and the hours which may be worked, by road drivers hauling perishable commodities, as provided in this sec- tion and in the agreements of various local unions in Chicago. Insofar, however, as it purports only to regulate the hours and working condi- tions of the road drivers employed by the contract employers and to protect the jobs of such employees, section 2 of article 40 is lawful. If these provisions were intended to regulate employment conditions of employees of other employers,6 or to limit local deliveries to mem- bers of the union,' they would, of course, be unlawful, but such intent has not been established in this case. Therefore, in view of the ambiguity of the language used, and the agreement of the parties to 4 See Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union , Local No. 546, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Minnesota Milk Company ), 133 NLRB 1314, 1316, affd. 314 F. 2d 761 (C.A. 8). 5-Cf. Meat and Highway Drivers, Dockmen, Helpers and Miscellaneous Truck Terminal Employees, Local Union No. 710, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America ( Wilson & Co., Inc., et al ), 143 NLRB 1221 (the Chairman and Member Brown dissenting in part). U Truck Drivers Union Local No. 413 ( The Patton Warehouse, Inc.), supra. 7 Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers, Local 107, International Brotherhood of Team, sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent (E. A. Gallagher & Sons), 131 NLRB 925. 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD confine this record to the stipulated facts, we shall not pass upon the legality under Section 8 (e) of these provisions upon the record be- fore us.8 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce 'among the several States, and tend to lead to labor dis- putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers "General" Local Union No. 200, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Milwaukee Cheese Company, Gateway Transportation Company, and Steffke Freight Company are Employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By entering into, maintaining, and giving effect to article 9, sec- tions 1 and 2, and article 29 (a) of the Central States Area Local Cart- age Agreements, and to article 9, sections 1 and 2, and article 47(a) of the Central States Area Over-the-Road Agreement, with Gateway Transportation Company and with Steffke Freight Company, the Respondent violated Section 8 (e) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers 8 Mslk Drivers, etc., Local No. 546 (Minnesota Milk Company ), supra. CHAUFFEURS, ETC., HELPERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 833 "General" Local Union No. 200, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Entering into, maintaining, or giving effect to article 9, sections 1 and 2, and article 29(a) of its Central States Area Local Cartage Agreement, and article 9, sections 1 and 2, and article 47 (a) of its Cen- tral States Area Over-the-Road Agreement, to the extent found un- lawful herein. (b) Entering into, maintaining, giving effect to, or enforcing any other contract or agreement, express or implied, whereby Steffke Freight Company or Gateway Transportation Company, or any other employers, cease or refrain, or agree to cease or refrain, from handling, using, selling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in any of the prod- ucts of Milwaukee Cheese Company, or any other employer, or from doing business with any other person. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's business offices, meeting halls, and other places where notices to members are cus- tomarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." e Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by official represen- tatives of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region signed copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Steffke Freight Company, Milwaukee Cheese, Gateway Transportation Com- pany, and all other employers party to the Central States Area Local Cartage Agreement or the Central States Area Over-the-Road Agree- ment, if the employers agree, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re- gional Director, shall, after being signed by the Respondent, as indi- cated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writ- ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. 9In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "Pursuant to a Deci- sion and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." 834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MEMBER LEEDOM, dissenting in part : Like my colleagues, I find that the picket line, struck goods, and subcontracting clauses of the Respondent's Local Cartage and Over- the-Road Agreements are violative of Section 8(e) of the Act. Un- like my colleagues, however, I would find further that section 2 of article 40, entitled "Perishable Commodities," and section 19(a) of article 32, entitled "Owner-Operators," of the Over-the-Road Agree- ment, are also violative of Section 8(e) of the Act. In my opinion, these provisions are unlawful in several respects. As to article 40, section 2, the last sentence prohibits pickups and deliveries in certain areas of Chicago except as "permitted" by the agreements of certain specified local unions, including Teamsters Local 710. It is entirely clear to me from this sentence that local pickups and deliveries by road drivers in the Chicago area are im- properly circumscribed. Thus, the jurisdiction of Teamsters Locals 710, 705, 782, 801, and Independent Local 705 must be respected, and no deliveries can be made unless permitted under the terms of such locals' agreements. The illegality of this prohibition becomes ap- parent from an examination of Local 710's contract, referred to in article 40, which was before the Board in the recent Wilson & Co. case 10 and of which I take judicial notice. In that case, the Board was unanimous in finding, in line with prior holdings as to compar- able agreements, that the current agreement of Local 710 was violative of Section 8(e) of the Act. That contract required local deliveries, whether to final destination or point of transfer, to be delivered by the contracting employer's own equipment, and, when there was a lack of equipment at an individual plant or branch, to make "all effort ... to contract a cartage company who employs members of Local No. 710." This provision, in the Board's opinion, required a cessation of dealing with independent cartage companies until an attempt was made by the contracting employer to find in the area a cartage company that employed Local 710 members, and, if such cartage company was available, not to use independents at all. With regard to this requirement, the majority of the Board found that "The practical effect would be virtually the same as if the clause had ex- pressly prohibited subcontracting to any nonunion employer." Al- though the Chairman and Member Brown dissented in other respects, they took no issue with the findings that such restrictions were viola- tive of Section 8(e) of the Act. It is patent that the placing of such restrictions on the employer's operations in the present case, by in- corporating the Local 710 agreement, also violated Section 8 (e) of the Act. 10 Meat and Highway Drivers, etc. Local Union No. 710 (Wilson & Co ., Inc. et al. ), supra CHAUFFEURS, ETC., HELPERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 835 Section 2 of article 40 also provides that where "local conditions" do not now permit any pickup 'and/or delivery by road drivers, "such conditions shall continue." In the light of the various other provi- sions found unlawful, I am convinced, and find, that the phrase "local conditions" refers to local union conditions, and that it was intended to prohibit the contract employers from dealing with customers wher- ever local unions do not permit road drivers to operate, unless the contract employers replaced their road drivers with local union men or complied with the terms of the local unions' contracts. This pro- vision is therefore also contrary to Section 8(e).11 With reference to section 19(a) of article 32, I note that it pro- vides that the contract employers may use individual owner-operators only if the employers agree to submit all grievances pertaining to their use to one of the joint employer-union grievance committees. This provision dictates to the employers those owner-operators with whom they can do business, based upon the willingness of the owner- operators to abide by union rules. This section also provides that owner-driver operations are to be terminal-to-terminal "except where no local employees to make such deliveries or otherwise agreed to in this contract." It is patent that this •clause effects a further limita- tion on the use of owner-operators. They may operate terminal to terminal, and may operate locally, but only if certain exceptions arise. The latter concession is conditioned upon what has been agreed to elsewhere in the contract. As I have already pointed out in respect to article 40, section 2, I believe that section, as well as the contracts of Chicago local unions such as Local 710 incorporated therein, place unlawful restrictions on the contract employers' business operations. I would, therefore, also hold that section 19(a) of article 32 violates Section 8 (e) of the Act. "Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers, Local 107 (E. A. Gallagher & Sons ), supra APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF EM- PLOYERS WHO ARE PARTIES TO EITHER THE CENTRAL STATES AREA LOCAL CARTAGE AGREEMENT OR THE CENTRAL STATES AREA OVER-THE-ROAD AGREEMENT Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that : WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, or give effect to article 9, sections 1 and 2, or article 29 (a) of the Local Cartage Agreement, 727-083-64-vol. 144-54 836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or article 9, sections 1 and 2, or article 47 (a) of the Over-the-Road Agreement, to the extent found unlawful in the Board's Decision and Order. WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, give effect to, or enforce any other contract or agreement, express or implied, whereby Steffke Freight Company, Gateway Transportation Company, or any other employer, ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using, selling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in any of the products of Milwaukee Cheese Company or any other employer, or from doing business with any other person. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS "GENERAL" LOCAL UNION No. 200, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Labor Organization. Dated----- ----------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Midland Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, Telephone No. CE 6-9660 if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. General Teamsters Local No. 324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America [Curly's Dairy, Inc., and Timber Valley Dairy, Inc.] and Cas- cade Employers Association , Inc. Case No. 36-CC-96. Septem- ber 26, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER Unfair labor practice charges were filed on January 21, 1963, and thereafter amended on March 5, 1963, by Cascade Employers Asso- ciation, Inc., acting for its employer members, Curly's Dairy, Inc., and Timber Valley Dairy, Inc., against the Respondent, General Teamsters Local No. 324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Thereafter, on April 8, 1963, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging that the Respondent had violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act by picketing certain retail 144 NLRB No. 77.